http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/14/upshot/hillary-clinton-doesnt-need-a-primary-fight.html?abt=0002&abg=0&_r=0No, Hillary Clinton Would Not Benefit From a Primary Fight
APRIL 13, 2015
Nate Cohn
Hillary Clinton has a better chance of winning her party’s nomination without a serious contest than any nonincumbent in the modern era. If that happens, she will be lucky to avoid the fight. Most of the concerns about an unopposed Clinton candidacy are overstated, and there are big reasons she will benefit from running unopposed in the presidential primary.
Vigorous primary campaigns do tend to make fundamentally sound candidates stronger. They provide an opportunity for candidates to refine their messages, raise money, register voters, build organizations and gain additional valuable experience. Barack Obama, who had few weaknesses but little experience, was served exceptionally well by the 2008 Democratic primaries.
But primary campaigns tend to expose the flaws of fundamentally weak candidates. Take Mitt Romney, who was tarred as a flip-flopper in 2012 and forced to move to the right on immigration and other issues. Establishment Republicans blamed the primary debates and have since moved to reassert control over the process. But the debates weren’t the problem; Mitt Romney was. He had changed his positions on a number of crucial issues, and when he was governor of Massachusetts, he had overseen the creation of a health care plan similar to the Affordable Care Act. All this was bound to be examined in a competitive primary campaign, regardless of how many debates were sanctioned by the Republican National Committee.
Hillary Clinton in 2008, when she lost a bruising primary battle to Barack Obama. This time around, she stands to benefit from a relatively quiet primary season. Credit Damon Winter/The New York Times
continued
